A fresh round of Democrats has announced they will not be attending the party convention in Charlotte. Most troublingly for President Obama, several of them are from North Carolina, and not only have they decided not to drop in on a convention held in their own state, theyve refused to endorse Obama for president in 2012.

Additionally, news broke just before the Fourth of July holiday that Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas has decided not to attend the party convention, although he does support Obama for president.

The North Carolina trio hasnt been particularly talkative about their decision, with McIntyre and Kissell refusing to return calls from the Asheville Citizen-Times.

Rachel Adams of the North Carolina GOP, on the other hand, was quite happy to discuss the situation with the press, saying Hayden Rogers refusal to publicly support both President Obama and attend his own partys national convention illustrates that North Carolina voters have rejected President Obamas job killing, big government policies.

If President Obama cant even capture enthusiasm from his own party, how can he expect to rally voters in November?

Its tougher to sell the too busy campaigning to waste time at the convention excuse when youre talking about candidates in the very state where the convention is being held. In fact, Kissell represents the 8th Congressional District, where Charlotte is located. Furthermore, a busy schedule of campaign activities doesnt explain why these folks refuse to endorse Obama for re-election.

There are some Republicans who have decided not to attend their partys convention in Tampa, such as George Allen of Virginia, whose opponent Tim Kaine says he will be at the Democrat convention in Charlotte.

But far more Democrats are taking a pass on Charlotte, and some of them are making it clear that they want to distance themselves from an unpopular President while running tough races in red and purple states.

Its also telling that a key early Obama supporter, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, is among those skipping the 2012 convention.

Its tough to say if this is a record number of candidates and elected officials skipping a party convention. Both Republican and Democrat candidates skipped their 2008 conventions, generally with the same stated reason of being too busy with campaign activities to attend, but their numbers look to have been considerably smaller, with fewer refusals to endorse.

It also seems, from a review of 2008 news articles, that these announcements tended to come much later in the game, closer to the date of the actual conventions. The media didnt make as much of a fuss about it as they are today.

Of course, there wasnt an incumbent President on the ticket in 2008. (In fact, the most widely reported convention-skipping decision in 2008 was George Bushs announcement that he wouldnt attend the Republican convention, and he pointedly was not running for office at the time.)

Looking back to 2004, only three Senate candidates made any headlines by announcing they would skip the GOP convention in New York: David Vitter of Louisiana, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Greater attention was paid to the non-attendance of a non-candidate, Colin Powell. I think it can be said that the number and stature of Democrat candidates bailing on the 2012 convention is remarkable, if not historic.

Will all of this convention-skipping make a difference, once affairs in Charlotte have been concluded? No doubt the Republicans will make some hay of it, reminding presidential voters that candidates from Obamas own party took pains to distance themselves from him, while the opponents of Democrats in tight local races will portray their refusal to attend the convention as transparent attempts to hide their liberalism and party loyalty.

The effectiveness of those tactics will probably depend upon President Obamas standing in the polls as the election draws closer. If hes doing well in the fall, it wont matter that a sizable number of candidates chose to avoid his convention; if hes down in the polls, the convention-skippers will be salt in his political wounds.

The tenor of the convention will probably have a lot to do with it as well, as a successful convention largely free of controversy or major political stumbles will go a long way toward erasing the memory of those who chose not to attend.

Okay, I have a question. If there are so many congress-critters who are trying so hard to distance themselves from Obama, shouldn’t NOW be the time to throw up the repeal of Obamacare? We might actually get a whole lot more Dem votes than one might anticipate. Just to be on the record for voting against it.

It is No Small Thing to insult a sitting president in such a manner. They must be Real Sure he won’t be re-elected, because life for them will be a bitch on wheels with a Sworn Enemy sitting in the oval, calculating his payback.

And if they are that sure, then that’s a very meaningful straw in the wind.

I’m sure these Rats have received “permission” not to show up. They know the only chance some of these morons have is to show that they aren’t part of the leftist core.

They will fall in line if the King wins...and they likely have his permission not to show up. Heck, I won’t be surprised if they DO show up in disguises, so they can enjoy in their liberal lust-fest without actually being there “on the record”.

A. Not attending the convention
B. Not endorsing him for Preezy
C. All of the above

This should not be taken lightly, as bad as Romney is, I don’t see any of the Pubs doing this on our side. The Dems must know something is up, and don’t want to associate themselves with the coming train wreck.

We’re not fooled by any of this crap. They’ll do what they have to do to get re-elected, then if Obama’s still president, they’ll be licking his boots and voting with the democratic leadership in lockstep just like usual.

Good point, after his “victory” comes crashing to earth and the glow has faded, he’s going to encounter the same problems he did a couple of months and weeks ago. The SC ruling was a life preserver - a life preserver made of lead.

My suspicion is that, those senators and congresspeople who are announcing that they won't be at the convention, will "surprise" the convention and the country, to announce that, they are in fact, standing behind their man. It will be a way to "shock" the public and try to give Obama an huge bounce at, and after, the convention, and to show the voters that, the democrats are standing together and will not back down from their agenda, and won't back away from "their man".

I don't trust the democrats, and, they'll do whatever it takes to win, which includes lying, cheating, and stealing (including stealing of elections).

I still think Obama will be found in a fetal position soon and have to be scooped up and lead away and Hillary will fly in on her broom to save the party, the country and the american way

I think when it's clear to the powers that control the Demwit party that hussein can't win, they'll off him and try to blame it on a white Christian group in order to split the country wide open. THEN Hillary will swoop in.

As interesting as it is to see congressional Democrats seeming to be abandoning Obama, I wouldn’t get too excited. Just as Republicans that are lukewarm on Romney (Jim raises his hand) will still cast their vote for him in November, these Democrat officeholders may not attend the convention or endorse Obama just to play it safe - they see the handwriting on the wall - but they’ll vote for him and if he should pull out a victory (highly unlikely) they’ll be right there cheering him on as he continues his planned destruction of our liberties and our economy. This is simply not as important as we would like it to be. Remember, these people are Democrats and thus, deceitful and not to be trusted in any way.

The funniest thing about this is that Kissell’s district, the Eighth, encompasses much of the suburban Charlotte metro area, including where I’m sitting now (Cabarrus County, about 25 miles from where the DNC will be held). It’s in his backyard and he won’t attend. That speaks volumes.

Also, apparently Kissell’s district was adjusted to bring in more R voters in the 2010 redistricting. So he’s having to play up his weak Blue Dog credentials. But it says something for how terrible the Republicans are at times that I don’t even *know* the R that’s running against him, so he may well hold on to the seat in November.

The Dem incumbents in West Virginia, Kentucky and NC can run but they can’t hide. If the RNC is smart they will have the morphing camera ready to run television commercials morphing the Dem incumbent’s visage into the face of Obama.

No, she couldn't have asked for a worse scenario -- they all know Bobo's running weak, so he's cranked up the boilerplate agitprop bluster because it's been implored upon him to save downticket races -- a strategy Cankles herself probably has to endorse, but one that also pre-empts her from replacing him.

If she acknowledges that Bobo is so weak as to need replacing, the downticket races would implode.

It would be different if Bobo was so ill he couldn't serve, etc. Then she would work out some deal with Biden and the game would be on.

Hillary will fly in on her broom to save the party, the country and the american way

"I've been saying that for six months."

I've been saying that for for a long time as well, but a friend who is much more connected and much more savvy than I agrees that a last minute change is quite possible but he says it's most likely to be Cuomo. I still don't rule out Her Heinous.

The reason Claire McCaskill is not attending the DNC Convention in NC is because she is going to be in a tight fight for re-election in MO and doesn't want to appear too close to BO. Missourians are not happy with BO and Claire doesn't want to jeopardize herself with the voters.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.